The corporate media refers to itself as 'mainstream' in an effort to marginalize so-called "alternative" media. While some instances (e.g. BBC) are not strictly commercial, all the corporate media is hierarchically structured, so a very small number of editors can censor or modify its output.

Official Narrative

Echoing the official narrative of its more highly funded, longer established bedfellows, Wikipedia refers to the large news conglomerates with their preferred self-description, the "mainstream media" (MSM). As of January 2017, the Wikipedia page had lead for some years with a reference to a 1997 article by Noam Chomsky, stating that "Mainstream Media" (MSM) "both reflect and shape prevailing currents of thought".[4] This is an uncomfortable fit with a September 2016 poll finding that found only 32% of US adults trusting big media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly."[5]

Problems

The wikipedia page itself refers to the massive media consolidation in the US (though Wikipedia editors have removed details of its extent).[6] Considering that corporate media has a hierarchical structure this renders them easily controllable, rendering the idea of big media as "reflective" of public opinion as highly suspect. Since the news agenda is dictated by a very small number of very rich individuals, it has been suggested that the phrase "mainstream" would be more accurate if replaced by a label which respected the plutocratic agenda it promotes.[7] On Wikispooks, the term CCM (Commercially/Corporate Controlled Media) is preferred.

Deep state control

A lot of topics such as popular culture, celebrities etc. are of only marginal interest to deep state forces. On those which are of interest, a range of of measures combine to give more or less (generally more) effective control over what is published. The formal hierarchy of editor control is only the most obvious of a whole suite of methods to regulate the output of the corporate media. The net result is that certain established official narratives are promoted - as are those who think in these terms and can naturally write convincingly about them; conversely, those who are set on expressing alternative evidence or opinions find their careers as professional journalists short-lived. Although so pervasive as to be almost universal,[8] this deep control goes unnoticed by many in the profession, whose reporting remains so far from matters of interest to the deep state that is remains outside their experience.

Mendacity

Corporate media attempt to maintain plausible deniability as a fallback position in case their lies, whether of omission of commission, or exposed later. The 1995 case of Steve Wilson and Jane Akre clarified an important point, although it was not widely reported in US at the time. The couple were fired when they refused to tailor their investigation into RBGH to suit Monsanto's wishes[9]. Ruling on their case, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed that their employer could demand that they lie since there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.[10] An uncertain but large proportion (perhaps >50%) of TV news footage in USA is in fact VNRs (video news releases) produced by 3rd party corporations, as a kind of stealth advertising that masquerades as news.

Loss of confidence

The US public no longer has the faith it used to in corporate media. The proportion of Americans expressing a “great deal of confidence” in the press has fallen from 28 percent in 1976 to just 8 percent in 2016.[11] This trend may have inspired the "fake news website" campaign of late 2016 which blewback into the popularity of the phrase "fake news", which continues to inpire people to cross check media sources, further undermining faith in sources which are mendacious.

Censorship

“I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to ‘How do we deal with Sibel [Edmonds]? The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn’t get into the [corporate] media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told “don’t touch this...””Daniel Ellsberg (2014) - [12]

Internet censorship is of necessity more complex and varied where many users can post. Covert censorship is generally preferred, but sometimes overt censorship is resorted to. Wikipedia has its own censorship practices. Reddit is subject to censorship and control.[13] In November 2016 Reddit banned a group which was investigating top level pedophilia in US society to prevent a "witch hunt". The group continued their investigate at voat.co, an alternative platform not owned by Conde Nast. The group has compiled a list of dozens of corporate media outlets which removed related content.[14]

“[The] investigation based on Edmonds’ information was supposed to have four parts, but was inexplicably dropped. “The story was pulled half-way, suddenly, without any warning”, the journalist said. “I wasn’t party to the editorial decision to drop the story, but there was a belief in the office amongst several journalists who were part of the Insight investigative unit that the decision was made under pressure from the U.S. State Department, because the story might cause a diplomatic incident... The way the story was dropped was unusual, but the belief amongst my colleagues this happened under political pressure is plausible.” He cryptically described an “editorial mechanism, linked to the paper but not formally part of it, which could however exert control on stories when necessary, linked to certain interests.” When asked which interests, the journalist said, “I can’t say. I can’t talk about that.””An unnamed "lead reporter" on Edwards' series at the Sunday Times. (January 2008) - [16]

Consolidation

The last 20 years have seen an unprecedented consolidation of media ownership, meaning that ownership of US TV, radio, newspaper and billboards is more concentrated than ever. The same process has been repeated worldwide - leaving an ever smaller number of huge corporations controlling an ever large number of formerly independent media outlets, retaining the apparent diversity of opinion while in fact exercising hierarchical control over content, thus presenting a controlled spectrum of opinion.

High Profile Examples

BBC

On the face of it the BBC, as a tax-payer funded organisation (or 'public-service broadcaster' as current Newspeak has it), ought to be less susceptible to the commercial pressures on the rest of the corporate media. On matters of little importance to the deep state, the BBC is relatively balanced and impartial. This however makes its clandestine control by the powers that be all the more insidious. There are many cases of such lofty dismissal, amply documented on the Media Lens. Where issues impinge upon the interests of the permanent government, the BBC has always been the voice of the British Establishment. Its charter is the work of men wedded to the Mackinder-Rhodes-Milner vision of the British Empire as a missionary force for 'progress' and the spread of civilisation in the world; it is financed on the whim of a government in thrall of the deep state. How could it be anything else?

Wikipedia

Wikipedia experienced a professionalisation around 2007 which moved it firmly in the direction of the commercially controlled media. This is most clearly understood through the "Reliable Sources" policy in particular which means, more or less, that if a subject hasn't been reported on by commercially controlled media or by those in established positions of social power and influence, then Wikipedia doesn't want to know about it. These policies do in fact lead to a credible and useful encyclopaedia on whole swathe of topics (i.e. technical, non-political topics) no doubt giving many readers the misleading impression that Wikipedia articles are reliable even for politically sensitive topics.

Alternatives

The audience of several corporate media companies (such as MSNBC, Fox News and CNN) declined significantly in 2013[19] suggesting that viewers were going elsewhere for information. The main alternative to the corporate media is the internet, where a multiplicity os smaller sources (such as Wikispooks) provide an alternative to the online corporate news sites. One response to this has been to ramp up propaganda about "cyberterrorism" and to expand internet censorship under pretexts such as the "war on terror" or the protection of "intellectual property".

Search Engines

The de facto monopoly of search engines and social networkingwebsites run by corporations well integrated in business networks poses another challenge for those who want to avoid manipulation. An alternative search engine is the seeks project which uses user-defined page ranking.

The ranking of commercially controlled search engines presents an obstacle for social change because

most importantly they act as multiplier to the - as of 2015 - commercially controlled public opinion through their ranking based on popularity. "Share" and "Like" buttons have a similar multiplier function which makes alternative news and research appear marginal compared to the boosted Consensus trance.

A cogent demonstration of the gross bias of the mainstream media in its coverage of the ongoing 2011 Syrian insurgency. It shows that they are immune to any lessons of their similarly mendacious reporting both before and during the 2003 Iraq war

A master-class in how the celebrated 'Free-Press' of the Western commercially controlled media is harnessed to the narrative requirements of the Establishments of which they are a part, turning them into little more than propaganda organs where major foreign policy issues are concerned.

Demonstrates the Establishment-friendly double standards of the UK's flagship 'Left-wing' newspaper - The Guardian - through analysis of its coverage of a UN decision on the political asylum of Julian Assange

Mainstream media spokesmen, journalists and reporters are corralled into supporting and promoting the Establishment 'Dominant Grand-Narrative of our Time' while most appear blissfully unaware of the gross deceptions their careers are harnessed too - 'a man cannot see what his livelihood requires him NOT to see' - as the saying goes

An overview of the 'Propaganda Model' that accurately defines the nature of the western mainstream media. It also illustrates why "Commercially Controlled Media" is probably a better and more accurate term

An investigation into the wholesale distortion of news by the corporate media when reporting on the SAS killings of 3 IRA members in Gibraltar on 6 March 1988. It is a serious indictment of the British media's handling of the affair and particularly that of The Sunday Times.

“The crisis that we face is not so much an economic crisis but a moral crisis. The utter cynicism on the part of very well paid media who have become in essence hedonists of power (which is what courtiers are) that the truth no longer matters, that that sacred contract that a great reporter makes between the viewer or the reader to tell them the truth is no longer relevant.”

“The truth is hard to find. The truth is hard to know. The truth is more important than ever,” reads a television ad for The New York Times. What the paper fails to add is that the hardest place to find the truth about the forces affecting the life of the average American and the truth about empire is in the Times itself. News organizations, from the [NYT] to the tawdry forms of entertainment masquerading as news on television, have rendered most people and their concerns invisible.”

8 November 2017RobinGood information but lacks structureThis article lacks a good historical overview, but has important and current information to assist in reading between the li(n)es of the corporate media machine.

The corporate media refers to itself as 'mainstream' in an effort to marginalize so-called "alternative" media. While some instances (e.g. BBC) are not strictly commercial, all the corporate media is hierarchically structured, so a very small number of editors can censor or modify its output.